AACR23

AS (2007) CR 23

 

DVD edition

2007 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-Third sitting

Wednesday 27 June 2007 at 10 a.m.

 

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT. – Our first business is to consider the changes in the membership of committees proposed by the delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina set out in document Commissions (2007) 6 Addendum 3.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

The proposal is agreed to.

2. Time limit on speeches

THE PRESIDENT. – Given the large number of speakers and amendments for today’s debates, I propose that speeches in all debates be limited to four minutes.

Is that agreed to?

The proposal is agreed to.

3. Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report

THE PRESIDENT. – The main business this morning is the debate on “Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report”, presented by Mr Dick Marty on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 11302 rev. and Addendum.

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at 6 p.m. yesterday. Twenty-three amendments have been tabled and 32 names are on the list.

In order to finish by 1 p.m., we will need to interrupt the list of speakers at about 12.05 p.m. to allow time for the debate and votes. Are these arrangements agreed?

The arrangements are agreed to.

Colleagues, friends, ladies and gentlemen, I should like briefly to introduce our debate on secret detentions and unlawful interstate transfers involving Council of Europe member states – what has, quite justifiably, become known as the Marty report.

I shall not say much about the content of the report as I know that Mr Marty is about to do so far more effectively than I ever could. I would, however, like to say a few words about the institutional and political context.

I firmly believe that only this Parliamentary Assembly could have produced such an excellent report on an issue of such exceptional importance and sensitivity. That is in no way intended to denigrate the vital work of journalists or non-governmental organisations, such as Human Rights Watch, whose contribution I recognised by the award of a Presidential Distinction this morning. No other body, however, combines the advantages of our members’ mandate: our immediate link with national parliaments, our close co-operation with civil society and our unrivalled expertise in protecting human rights and the rule of law. Furthermore, no other body has our direct access to governments from across Europe, or the potential to call them to account on the basis of obligations and commitments that they have freely accepted as members of our Organisation.

Thanks to his experience and reputation, Mr Marty was given the freedom to deal with the most sensitive sources of information, using confidential methods and the utmost discretion. Since our first report, President Bush has publicly acknowledged that high-value detainees were secretly detained in various locations – the ultimate proof that the basic premise of our findings can no longer be denied. Whether or not Mr Marty has provided final, forensic proof of the involvement of certain member states, his case is now so coherent and so persuasively presented that it must be properly answered. Unfortunately, some member states and, most disappointingly, some national parliaments still live in denial, afraid of the political consequences of launching proper investigations and hoping that the issue will just go away. They must understand, however, that it will not, that Mr Marty will not and that this Assembly will not. I therefore urge all our member states, all our delegations and all our national parliaments to live up to their commitments and, finally, take this matter seriously. I very much hope that our debate will provide the necessary push.

Mr Marty, the floor is yours.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) noted that it had all begun in November 2005 when members of American civil society, particularly Human Rights Watch, had revealed that eastern European democracies were hosting secret interrogation prisons. The Council of Europe had reacted immediately, entrusting the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights with producing a report. The committee was not, of course, a body of inquiry – it had neither powers nor resources – but it had been able to address questions to member governments. Some governments did not even respond to questions, while others gave formal responses that did not answer the questions posed.

The committee had been faced by a wall of silence erected by governments across Europe. Behind that wall, violations of human rights were taking place, with individuals being abducted and taken to detention centres outside any form of judicial control. The American President had explicitly referred to secret detention centres, thereby confirming their existence. The American Government had, in fact, been manifestly consistent and even displayed a degree of transparency. It had stated that, in its view, the Geneva Conventions did not provide an adequate instrument in the fight against terrorism. So-called enhanced interrogation techniques had been used, techniques which amounted to torture in the eyes of the international community. European governments, on the other hand, had displayed neither transparency nor consistency, and the search for the truth had been obstructed by various parties. The question had to be asked why governments refused to answer those questions.

The committee’s first report had laid bare a spider’s web of secret flights and secret detention centres. As had been demonstrated by the abduction of Abu Omar in Italy, the activities of the CIA could not have taken place without the collaboration of national authorities. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights had authorised him to take up contacts with confidential sources. That was not a decision he could have made as the rapporteur: it had had to be a decision of the committee. He was grateful for the trust that the committee had placed in him by authorising him to proceed in this manner. That decision had proved worthwhile because those contacts had enabled the committee to put together information to which there would not otherwise have been access. The committee was able to publish information corroborated by those confidential sources with a high degree of confidence in their accuracy. It had always verified the sources on both sides of the Atlantic.

In discussing the report and future action today the Assembly should not concentrate on condemning Poland and Romania, but should request the immediate implementation of the right of European peoples to know what was happening. It was appropriate to pay tribute to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had publicly recognised its error in co-operating with the CIA, and also to Canada, which had not only recognised the error of co-operation but paid compensation to the victim.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Marty. I call Mr Omtzigt, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – Mr Marty and the staff of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights have done courageous research in difficult circumstances. Investigating possible secret detention camps requires arduous work against mighty adversaries. A lot has gone into the report. The accusations in the report amount to strong allegations of serious violations of human rights and of the European Convention on Human Rights on the soil of member states of the Council of Europe.

In the past few years, member states have been faced with challenges in combating terrorism of the worst kind in modern history. That terrorism seeks to destroy the very foundations on which our open and democratic society is built. Such a fundamental threat to human rights deserves a strong and consistent response. That response should always be within the rule of law, and not just because we believe that justice should be done based on legal principles, even for those who perpetrate the most heinous crimes. Much more than that, we should never abandon legal standards because then terrorists achieve their fundamental goal: the end of the rule of law in our societies, the end of an open society and the end of democracy.

The Marty report formulates serious accusations against a number of member states – in particular, they created juridical vacuums in which no law applied. In that vacuum, prisoners were transferred. Those accusations were explicitly admitted on 6 September 2006. New are the accusations that governments obstructed the course of justice and that prisoners were held in camps, run and managed by the CIA, in Poland and Romania, in secrecy, without formal accusations and in the most horrendous circumstances. Those accusations have been formulated with extensive circumstantial evidence to support them and 30 secret testimonies from high-level officials on both sides of the Atlantic. The Council of Europe has explicitly agreed with such testimonies. They provided important information, but that is not an ideal method of verification, for it fails to give full and exhaustive proof on those aspects. However, even I as a scientist know that such proof is not the key criterion at this stage. Resolving the many blank spots and question marks in the report and in the official reactions is not foremost in our minds. Member states cannot and should not continue to refuse to co-operate. They should not just issue an order saying, “We did research, we found nothing, we publish nothing.”

The report is the solid basis for the next step. We propose to formulate unambiguous and specific questions to member states and individuals, to be answered promptly and fully. There should also be ample opportunity to make free statements and to show the suspected airports and military sites. Hearings by the Council of Europe would be valuable and we invite the Committee of Ministers to find ways in which people can be heard under oath. If we defend our open society, openness should also be applied in its defence.

Civil society and parliamentary oversight have an important role to play in establishing the truth and in putting mechanisms in place to uncover, tackle and prevent abuse of human rights. We call on the countries named in the report to take action and to find out for themselves, alongside the Council of Europe, the full truth.

In a democratic society, citizens and politicians alike defend the rule of law and their freedoms. Europe must be free of secret flights, non-responsive officials and “black sites”. The report helps in making Europe a more democratic place.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt. I call Mr Eörsi, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – The time has come to stop crying about lack of visibility for the Council of Europe. Dick Marty is, I think, more well known than many heads of state and government. He has proved to us that if you pick up an important issue and are critical about countries, you are visible. Congratulations and well done.

The report can be perceived as an embarrassment by a number of countries. The Liberals would like to focus on the future and on coming to conclusions. Poland and Romania have often been mentioned in connection with this subject. Hungary has a lot of empathy with the views that have been expressed. Several countries believe that they cannot rely on Europe. If they are in trouble, then Berlin, Paris and London can seek a diplomatic round to find a solution. Other countries can only see F16s from Aviano air base, which take off to protect them. That is not an excuse but an explanation. If those countries felt that there was more solidarity from Europe, there would be less temptation and fewer mistakes would be made.

The same applies to the United States of America. I think that America believes that it cannot rely on its European colleagues and partners any more. “Please do not say that Europe was right” – that is how the situation is perceived in America. The Americans are then tempted to find illegal solutions. I think that we can be positive about the position of Germany, America and perhaps France. Nicolas Sarkozy is now seeking a deeper alliance with America. Perhaps America will be assured that it does not need to seek illegal solutions because it can rely on European allies.

Winston Churchill said, “You can always count on America to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” That makes a very good point about self-learning democracy. The American Government is criticised more and more by Americans themselves for Guantánamo. It is even possible that the Republicans will close Guantánamo. When the Democrats come in, we can rest assured that Guantánamo will be closed and they will stop these illegal transfers. That is a good thing, and the same applies to Europe. We also sometimes have self-learning democracy here in the Council of Europe when we are discussing mistakes made by all. There are sometimes lies by member countries, as well.

Let me conclude by saying that 11 September caused a panic – in Europe as well, but mostly in America. We should think about what countries do in a panic. They make mistakes. Really, the reaction to panic should be much more intelligence, and spending much more public money on intelligence; however, there may well be less transparency and public control. So what can we Liberals say to Europe and to our colleagues in America? We should tell them that panic is a bad adviser. I understand the panic and I understand that there should be more intelligence and more public money spent, but that should be done hand in hand with greater transparency and more public control. We should be ready to correct the mistakes that we have made.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Greenway, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – On behalf of the European Democrat Group, I am delighted to congratulate Mr Marty on his very thorough report. I want to acknowledge immediately that this is a highly contentious issue and we cannot simply brush aside – we must take note of it – the dissenting opinion of other colleagues, particularly from Poland and Romania. Establishing the truth in all this is extremely difficult. Again, I congratulate Mr Marty on what he has found out. I have a feeling that we may never know exactly what has gone on and what may still be going on.

You quite rightly drew attention, Mr President, to the acknowledgment by President Bush of the existence of a detention programme operated by the CIA. That is acknowledged. Yet we also know that Secretary Rice has consistently stated that the United States complies with its constitution, its law and treaty obligations, including those under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and respects the sovereignty of other countries. She also says that the United States does not authorise or condone torture. It seems to me that these statements are contradictory. I agree with the previous speaker, Mr Eörsi. I have felt for some time, notwithstanding the fact that I am a Conservative member of parliament, that the United Kingdom has always had a very strong relationship with America, but I believe that the world is crying out for a change of direction in American foreign policy.

In the brief time available to me, I want to make three points. First, I share the rapporteur’s concern at the use of state secrecy as a reason to obstruct transparency. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the draft resolution deal with the Abu Omar case in Italy and the Khaled El-Masri case in Germany. We as an Assembly must speak out about what is happening in both those cases – the abuse of state secrecy and the fact that we need to keep secret the various goings-on. I find that more and more deplorable.

Secondly, it seems to me that respect for human rights is absolutely vital for the long-term success of the fight against terrorism. We must fight terrorism within the law; otherwise, our democracy and the rule of law are undermined – and, as Mr Omtzigt said, the terrorist wins.

Thirdly, I would like to pose the question: what use is information obtained by torture? What do we do with information obtained by torture? We in the United Kingdom currently live in a very nervous state. We had the bombings in London on 7 July, and our security and intelligence services have now successfully prosecuted a number of persons who were intent on terrorist atrocities in our capital city of London. The public is nervous. We, as an Assembly, must through this debate and through all our proceedings speak out and say, “By all means use as much intelligence as possible, but do not resort to the use of torture.” We must not resort to the terrorist way of doing things.

Once again, I congratulate Mr Marty. I hope that this debate will send a clear message as to why we in this place so strongly defend human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lund, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – In December 2003, Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped in Macedonia. He was on his way to a holiday, but when he did so he went on a very different kind of holiday because he was kidnapped and sent to Afghanistan. There he was gaoled, tortured and held incommunicado for five months.

The El-Masri case is mentioned in the report and it is now well known, as are many other cases. As the single most important human rights body in Europe, the Council of Europe has been crucial in raising awareness of horrible torture, interrogations, deaths, the breaking of international law and violations of human rights.

To do the dirty job and to carry out the so-called “extraordinary rendition” or detainee programme, the CIA has several undercover airline companies. The aircraft are camouflaged as civilian aircraft and their owners are companies called, for example, Premier Executive Transport Service or – as in the Polish case in the report – Jeppesen International Trip Planning. Lovely names for awful activities! They seem to be ordinary civilian aircraft, but they are contracted by the CIA to carry out their secret mission, violating human rights and international law.

Last year on 26 June 2006, I said in this Assembly on behalf of the Unified European Left, “In our group… there is no doubt that secret detention and rendition flights are reality”. That has now been proven. The report also proves that secret detention facilities are also a reality. That is one principal conclusion of the report. Another important piece of information in the report concerns NATO’s active role. Paragraph 83 in section 2 of the report refers to “the CIA’s key operational needs on a multilateral level” being developed “under the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”. Paragraph 39 states: “all knew that CIA practices for the detention, transfer and treatment of terrorist suspects left open considerable scope for abuses and unlawful measures; yet all remained silent and kept the operations, the practices, their agreements and their participation secret.”

On behalf of the Unified European Left, I have tabled some amendments to the draft resolution and the draft recommendation which will take into account the report conclusions concerning NATO’s role. I hope that the Assembly will be in sympathy with those amendments.

Many governments – not only in Poland and Romania – have been very reluctant to co-operate fully with the Council of Europe in this matter. We therefore have to continue with the work of throwing light on the secret flights and the secret detentions. This report is one more step in the right direction, but it also shows that a good piece of work is still to be done before we can tell everything about the secret flights and the secretion detentions. Therefore we must continue until the whole truth is disclosed. The Unified European Left is looking forward to playing a very active role and to supporting this work 100 per cent.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, I call Mrs Durrieu, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that everybody in the Chamber individually and collectively was against terrorism. However, those present were also members of the Council of Europe – the temple of human rights in Europe and the world. Mr Marty was to be congratulated on his courage and his report. It was right that he had fought for the truth. The Assembly had to defend international law and the law of sovereign states, but it had to know the truth even though there would be risks in the process of uncovering it. Mr Bush had made honourable statements when he had revealed that secret prisons existed. But Mr Marty had wanted to verify his allegations, and he was right to do so.

The names of some “high-value detainees” were now known. Some were held on European soil, others in “black places”. These people had no rights or status, but they were still human beings who deserved human rights. International agreements were in place that were supposed to guarantee that. The day after 11 September 2001 NATO had invoked the principle of collective defence. That had been the right thing to do, but many of the measures that had been taken were not made public: they had led to a new order in which NATO became a platform against terrorism.

People wanted the truth and to break down the wall of silence. The Assembly had to continue to fight for human rights. The fight against terrorism could not absolve one from international law and international obligations. Europe would be a good ally, but it would continue to defend human rights and democracy.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Gacek.

Mrs GACEK (Poland). – I read the 70 pages of Mr Marty’s explanatory memorandum from cover to cover in one sitting. It makes fascinating reading. As they say in the publishing business this, dear colleagues, is a real “page-turner”. If I were to write a brief review of the report, it would read as follows: “The report may lack substance, but it more than makes up for that deficit with sensationalism. It is far-fetched conspiracy theory, spiced up with a generous helping of anti-Americanism.” If that sounds like a book review, then it is no coincidence, for what we have before us is a piece of fiction – a gripping political thriller.

Dear colleagues, we are not in the publishing business and we are not reviewing the latest potential bestseller by Tom Clancy. This Parliamentary Assembly has to judge a report and weigh up the merits of the arguments from which the text of the draft resolution and draft recommendation stem. I have faith in this Assembly. This is a serious body, which will, I am sure, treat this matter with the gravity that it deserves. We are not seeking sensation here; we are trying to get at the truth.

What we are being asked to vote on is a case made by the prosecution. Dear colleagues, what do you make of a case presented by a prosecutor who fails to provide a single piece of concrete evidence, who fails to present a single credible witness, who considers the written explanations of the accused as being totally inadmissible and, finally, who refuses several invitations to visit the site of the alleged crime? Would an investigation carried out in such a manner stand up to scrutiny in a court of law in any of our countries? I think not.

Poland’s human rights ombudsman, an independent and highly respected figure, carried out a thorough investigation and failed to find evidence of secret detentions in Poland. Can that fact be totally ignored? If politicians from all parties in Poland – including those such as me who are in opposition to both the previous Social Democratic alliance government and the current Law and Justice-led coalition – conclude that the allegations made by the rapporteur are unfounded, is this to be completely disregarded?

The rapporteur refused to visit the site of the alleged detention centre in Poland. Can you accept his argument that he turned down the invitation because he, a highly experienced prosecutor known for fighting organised crime and drug barons, feared that he would be manipulated by the Polish authorities? Why was no evidence for the defence taken into consideration? Because, dear colleagues, the conclusion to this report was written before the process of evidence gathering. Any materials that could weaken the case against the countries accused of a cover-up and of human rights violations were simply dismissed. What media interest would there be in a rapporteur who concluded that there was no hard evidence of secret detention centres? I think that it would be much less than we will witness at the press conference at 1 p.m. today.

Dear colleagues, I urge you to read the report and decide. Do you really agree that it has been factually – I repeat, factually – established that “secret detention centres operated by the CIA have existed for some years” in Poland and Romania, as stated in paragraph 2 of the draft resolution? When you put your voting cards in their slots and start pressing buttons, do not throw your impartiality and common sense out the window. Weigh up the facts, test the evidence and decide what the Assembly is seeking here today – sensation or truth.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I am delighted to follow our Polish colleague, because the sentiments that she expressed were those that I expressed when we previously discussed this report. I must commend Mr Marty and his limited team on the enthusiasm that they developed towards producing this report, but there are serious consequences arising from it, are there not? Mrs Durrieu said in her speech that we want the truth. Do we? Are we prepared to face the consequences of truth? This report suggests that the current President of Romania stood in this very Chamber just three or four metres in front of you, Mr President, and lied to this Assembly when he told us that there was no evidence, and that he had no knowledge of any of the actions that the Marty report now suggests are true. What are the consequences, then, for a head of state who comes to the Assembly and lies to us – blatantly, it would appear, if we are to believe what is written here? Do we really want the truth? Are we prepared to face the necessary consequences?

I have tabled a number of amendments, and I am delighted that some have been agreed. I happened to be in the United States at the time the report was published, and I have press cuttings. Mr Eörsi was right to say that Dick Marty was recognised – his picture appeared in many newspapers in the United States – but it was easy to rubbish the report. There was no firm evidence, and not one witness who was prepared to be named.

Could it really be the case that every single person who gave evidence was unwilling to give his or her name? We ask – and my amendments ask – members to request that their national parliaments hold inquiries into the matter. I have suggested, when discussing this in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and in an amendment, that if they were prepared to do that we would hand over all the evidence that the Assembly has, including that given by those who wished their identity to remain confidential. If we are the paragons of virtue and the defenders of transparency in all circumstances, why are we ourselves not prepared to be transparent?

We must face up to the fact that there are huge consequences for the Assembly. There are at least two delegations against which action should be taken immediately because of their governments’ actions. What are we going to do to all the states that refuse to co-operate for one reason or another, or refuse to answer? In one of my amendments, I ask them to explain fully to the Assembly their refusal to co-operate and give any answers – even the answer, “We are not willing to play any role in whatever game the Council of Europe is playing.” They did not give answers, and in some instances they ignored the request entirely. What are the repercussions for the Council of Europe and member states when people are not prepared to play by the rules?

The draft resolution states that the Assembly “reaffirms the importance of setting up within it a genuine European parliamentary inquiry mechanism”. With what powers, at what cost and under whose control – the Assembly’s or that of the Committee of Ministers? Are we seriously saying this sort of thing without taking account of the consequences? However, I would love to see it happen. I would like to see proper inquiries with evidence taken under oath, and pre-designed consequences for member states that failed to comply.

The whole story of extraordinary rendition is a blight on all of us. The Americans will say that whatever they have done in the fight against terrorism constitutes a fight that they are sharing with all of us. We are better protected today, they would argue, because of the actions that they have taken. Are we prepared to accept that, or are we prepared to say, “We are not going to take such measures in the future”?

None of us will have been in the position of some of the leaders who have had to make agonising decisions over the past few years. I would like to think that when we vote on the report, we will all ask ourselves what we would have done if we were in their position.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Cliveti.

Mrs CLIVETI (Romania). – This is a very important day for our Organisation. Today we must debate Mr Marty’s report. As we know, both the Assembly and the European Parliament had decided to investigate the allegations. The conclusions in Mr Fava’s report are formal: there is no evidence of violations of human rights in this context. Both Mr Fava and Mr Marty emphasise the good co-operation of all the Romanian authorities with the rapporteurs, and the perfect attitude of the Romanian national delegations to the European Union and the Assembly. Romania took the reports very seriously, offered all the information that was requested, set up a parliamentary committee to investigate the accusations and repeatedly invited Mr Marty to visit the country and carry out whatever investigations he wished to conduct.

Today we are dealing with a second report from our colleague Mr Marty. This time we are asked to accept “beyond any doubt” that on the territories of some Council of Europe member states there were secret detention centres where human rights were violated. That is a very serious accusation for my country. Names of important Romanian personalities were mentioned. Last week, I spoke to Mr Iliescu, the former Romanian President, Mr Talpes, the former presidential councillor, and Mr Pascu, the former Defence Minister. All of them were shocked and saddened by the assertions in the report, and asked me to defend the good name of my country. That is what I am trying to do now, with the help of my skills as a lawyer.

It is true that Romania is a member of NATO, and in that capacity signed several documents of collaboration. However, the claim in paragraph 219 of the report that Romania’s membership was negotiated in exchange for the establishment of secret bases is a very serious and unproved allegation. It is true that Romania made efforts in all fields to eliminate the structures of the former Securitate, and that all the measures taken year by year created many social and political tensions. That is why I cannot accept the rapporteur’s reference to “superficial” attempts.

Romanian legislation and the constitution itself were modified under the influence of the democratic world, especially when Romania became a candidate for Council of Europe membership, and we consider the principle of respect for law to be of the utmost importance. I would therefore have expected the rapporteur to underline the prompt reaction of the Romanian Parliament, the Romanian Government and the other institutions that co-operated with his team. Even the interest shown by the Romanian media and NGOs, which conducted independent investigations and reached the conclusion that no criminal activity had taken place, is proof that Romania has dealt with this issue in a transparent way. But Mr Marty declined all the invitations of the Romanian authorities and preferred to imagine how things had happened, as he himself says in paragraph 242.

Speaking of this scenario, I found the allegations about the air conditioner that troubled prisoners, as mentioned in paragraph 255, rather funny. I do not have such a facility in my office in parliament, and I sincerely doubt that something like it could exist in a Romanian prison. As for the details, contained in paragraph 261, about the breakfasts – dates for prisoners in Romania? – that is very funny. Paragraph 225 of the report refers to the secret area, including Mihail Kogalniceanu airport, as a perfect location, especially given its dual military-civilian character. I must tell you that in my home town, Bacau, there is a military and civilian airport too. That could also probably be considered as proof in the context of this report, or perhaps in the next one.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the Council of Europe is a European institution that attaches great importance to the truth, and during its existence it has been scrupulous in dealing with different allegations about member states. I remember the hard times that we had in Romania during the missions of different colleague rapporteurs who dealt with minority rights, abortion, children infected with HIV and so on. We accepted that there were problems and we changed the legislation. That is why we reject this report. It does not present real evidence; it talks about imaginary experiences of some people in some secret detention centres. It tries to highlight traumatic treatment that, if proven, should be severely punished. I end by saying, Mr President and dear colleagues, I am confident in your good judgment. However, I have just remembered – I do not know why – a Romanian movie called, “Too Little for Such a Big War”, and I hope that that is not so for Romania today. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that, while the fight against terror must not be called into question, it was also important to ensure that it was fought within the parameters of human rights. He had two points to make in the context of human rights. The first concerned secret detention of “high-value detainees”. Secret detention for indeterminate periods was inhumane for both the subjects and their families. It was the first step in the process of forced disappearance. During such periods detainees were vulnerable to torture which was often designed to destroy their personalities. Secondly, it was necessary to punish those who breached human rights. Many parliamentary inquiries on the subject had come up against the concept of “state secrets”, which had been invoked by the executive to avoid coming under full parliamentary scrutiny. While that might have been justified in some cases, it was important to have a framework to establish improper use, liability for breaches and compensation for victims.

He commended the appropriate way in which the rapporteur had dealt with those who gave confidential evidence and suggested that that could be a basis for scrutiny in the future.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Ungureanu.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) said that the debate gave everyone an opportunity to examine possible violations of human rights. However, the explanatory memorandum was more like a film scenario which was entirely based on speculation. Romania was a responsible subject of law and a country that ensured the primacy of law and democratic values. Information provided by Romania was never sufficient for the rapporteur, and there was no convincing evidence in the report that Romania had participated in that activity.

It was true that CIA flights had landed in or transited Romanian airports. In particular, before Romania’s accession to NATO, a military base had been used. But in accordance with prevailing international arrangements Romania had not been allowed to inspect what was on board the flights that had used that base.

Romanian officials had always said that illegal detainees were not held on Romanian territory. It was surprising that the rapporteur had chosen to contrast cases where Romanian officials had supported his inquiry with cases where they had not. It might be that the rapporteur was being manipulated and that some of the information supplied by individuals could have been intended to undermine the international campaign against terrorism.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Berceanu.

Mr BERCEANU (Romania) felt annoyed by the report. When the rapporteur had been appointed to report on such a sensitive issue everyone had believed he was a man of objectivity and experience: however, that view had perhaps been wide of the mark. One could not pass sentence without judging on the basis of evidence – as stated in paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe’s Bible. According to that principle, a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty. Mr Marty had not abided by the article when producing his report.

The report levelled gratuitous accusations against two member states without sound evidence in support. Romania had co-operated with every request from Mr Marty and 18 letters had been exchanged between the Romanian delegation and Mr Marty. Mr Marty had declined an invitation to visit Romania on the ground that that would not assist him substantially in producing his report. That demonstrated inexcusable prejudice on Mr Marty’s part. Mr Marty’s assistant, Mr Simpson, had visited Romania twice while working on the report and had experienced no difficulties in accessing all the information required for it. Mr Simpson had visited the airport and had had unrestricted access to military and civilian officials. He had also carried out a full inspection of the perimeter fence. Mr Marty’s report had produced no sound evidence to prove the very serious allegations made in it.

(Mr Aligrudić, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Berceanu. The next speaker is Mr Kaikkonen.

Mr KAIKKONEN (Finland). – I thank Mr Marty for his serious and thorough report on secret detentions and the illegal transfer of detainees. It advances convincing arguments on the role of the CIA in Europe.

Mr Marty states that “there is now enough evidence to state that secret detention facilities run by the CIA did exist in Europe from 2003 to 2005, in particular in Poland and Romania.” In fighting the war on terrorism, some countries have seriously violated the core principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including acts that can be classified as torture. To make matters worse, public attention has not increased co-operation in finding out what has been going on in the facilities or public information on who has been detained and why. Mr Marty states that the fight against terrorism should not be used as an excuse for illegal acts, and I fully agree. If the principles of the rule of law, human rights and democracy are being systematically eroded by state practices, it is hypocritical and vain to speak about such principles in any forums. The same applies to high declarations about common values, if those values are not respected in practice. There is no moral high ground any more if the “tough” treatment of prisoners is in fact torture and the “vital information” gained by such means is declared a state secret. Information is power, and it should be used democratically.

To be fair, it is neither easy nor straightforward to balance the rights of individuals with the collective security that the actions of individuals threaten. However, if secrecy, torture and the systematic covering up of illegal acts become norms in democracies fighting terrorism, democratic nations will not be any better than the terrorists they are fighting. There are no quick solutions to the problems of which terrorist acts are symptoms. Trust and co-operation between democracies are essential if the fight against terrorism is to be conducted effectively. The practices described by Mr Marty reduce that common understanding. I fully support the report, draft resolution and draft recommendation and think that they should be adopted. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Kaikkonen. I call Mr Strässer.

Mr STRÄSSER (Germany) argued that the Assembly showed signs of some confusion today. It was important to distinguish between a parliamentary debate and a court case. The report did indeed have some weaknesses, but nobody was on trial today: this was a parliamentary debate. The greatest weakness of the report was the lack of transparency; none the less, as a whole, the report had his full support.

The report touched on the core concerns of the Council of Europe. Those were issues that nobody but the Council of Europe would pursue consistently. Although not all the facts in the report could be verified, almost every country had now joined the discussion about human rights and their relationship with the fight against terrorism. Everyone wanted to combat terrorism and, of course, some things had to remain state secrets for the purposes of that fight. However, it was not justifiable to violate human rights to protect state secrets. One could not equate the preservation of state secrets with human rights violations. On the whole, Mr Marty had produced a well-founded report and, most important, it should fuel and inform the debate on human rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Last year, we were presented with Dick Marty’s first report on secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees, which focused on the “spider’s web” of secret flights taking detainees to places where they were ill treated and, by our standards, tortured. In his second report before us today, Mr Marty has completed his job by presenting us with ample evidence of secret places of detention in two member countries of the Council of Europe.

I am speaking of evidence. I do not mean a “smoking gun”, but could we expect to find such a thing, given who has committed the acts in question? Are we expecting the CIA and the secret services of the member states involved to leave smoking guns on the table? I am speaking of solid circumstantial evidence for facts that allow us, or even compel us, to reach the very conclusions which our rapporteur has arrived at.

The report lays down in impressive detail evidence of the simulation of fake flights in order to cover up the actual flights taking detainees from Afghanistan to Poland and Romania. Known dates of transfers of detainees out of Afghanistan coincide closely with proven flights into and out of Szcytno and MK airfields. Details of what happened on those days at the airports are confirmed by administrative documents and local officials.

That documentary evidence is completed by a wide array of witness statements. The rapporteur vouches for their authenticity and credibility, on which we can trust him, given his long and successful professional experience as a Mafia-hunting prosecutor. However, he is protecting the witnesses’ identities. It was on that condition that he obtained their testimonies, and we have ourselves authorised Mr Marty to receive information and testimony on condition of the protection of his sources.

Let there be no mistake: many of the witnesses will sooner or later speak out, but we have no right to ask Mr Marty to expose them against their will. That would put them at risk of losing their jobs, if not their liberty. The Milan prosecutor, Mr Armando Spataro, is being investigated for alleged breaches of state secrets while simply doing his job – identifying and holding to account those who abducted Abu Omar. Are we expecting witnesses in Romania and Poland to feel safe and to allow their names and the details of their evidence to be made public?

As long as whistleblowers are not protected from retaliation, which they should be – I am glad that the Bureau is discussing with our committee a motion that is aimed at improving their protection – they depend on protection from those in whom they confide. We can be proud that Dick Marty’s inquiry on behalf of our Assembly commanded such trust with potential witnesses that they agreed to speak to him in such large numbers, and in such depth and detail.

Mr Marty has done an excellent job. Today, members from Romania and Poland are blaming him. In a few years they will say that he did a brave and heroic job and apologise for what they have said. The witnesses would then come out and speak in public.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that it was a very old mistake, made for 2 000 years, to discredit the messenger if one did not like the message. Last year, when Mr Marty had presented his first report, certain members had sought to discredit and findings and conclusions. Today, these same members were putting in a repeat performance on Mr Marty’s second report. But the truth could not be suppressed for eternity. Clearly, there were high-ranking CIA officials and others with a bad conscience who had agreed to contribute to the report. It was essential that the Council of Europe stood by its principles, but it was also important to learn from one’s own mistakes. The United States had been clear about what it believed could be justified under its constitution, but Europe had been less clear about its own boundaries and had failed to stick by its principles. It was disgraceful that Europe had gone along meekly with American activities: that had to stop.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Jazłowiecka.

Mrs JAZŁOWIECKA (Poland). – I am not in a comfortable situation, representing a country that is accused in Mr Marty’s report of tolerating violations of the core provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from taking the floor on the matter. Mr Marty presents the possible train of events leading to the establishment and functioning of secret CIA prisons in Poland and Romania. He describes the alleged reasons why the United States Administration was taking those actions as well as the alleged motives of central European state leaders – and even the names of alleged prisoners.

All this information is based on hearsay, circumstantial evidence and anonymous interviews. The main weakness of the document is the lack of clear and substantive proofs, which are essential to justify such a grave accusation against any country. The existence of these kinds of prisons was confirmed by the President of the United States, George Bush. That is true. However, he did not mention where they were located. We can assume that they existed, but not necessarily in the countries pointed out by Mr Marty.

Dear colleagues, although there is not irrefutable evidence of secret CIA prisons located in Poland, I am convinced that such strong accusations as are presented in the report cannot be left unchallenged. My country is accused of giving consent to torture – consent that is alleged to have been given by the highest Polish authorities. These accusations are unprecedented.

I am convinced that, especially here, in the Council of Europe, it cannot be tolerated when such a serious accusation undermining the credibility of a country is made on the basis of circumstantial evidence and hearsay. What is required is the presentation of the real situation and of transparent facts relating to the violation of internal and international law.

Dear colleagues, just a few years ago, Poland was associated with a peaceful and democratic revolution through Solidarność. That showed a consensual way of transition from a communist dictatorship to democracy. We were an example for the whole world. Today, however, the image of Poland has changed. We are seen as a country where human rights are violated, where American secret services can act freely, where a nationalist spirit dominates, where part of society is being intimidated in order to gain some political aims.

The tradition of Solidarność and the sad experience of a totalitarian regime force me to express my objection to the trend towards building these images based only on unfounded allegations. If we really want to solve the problem of secret detentions and illegal transfer, the accusations made by Mr Marty must be supported by irrefutable evidence. This is not only in the interest of my country, but in the interest of the whole European continent.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

Mrs LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER (Germany) said that it was a credit to the Council of Europe that such an excellent report was before the Assembly and that it was being debated. Without the work of Mr Marty it was questionable whether the issues contained within his report would have been raised. He had stuck to his task despite the allegations made against him. That was what the Council of Europe was supposed to be about, raising and discussing issues that nation states often found difficult to consider themselves. In addition, just because the Assembly was discussing the issues, it did not mean that those issues were solely European.

The Assembly was not a court of law: it did not have the relevant powers and competences. It could not demand that evidence be supplied to it. However, the evidence contained within the report showed the political processes at work. She noted that in her own country an investigation was taking place regarding a German citizen. That case had thrown up many key facts and, importantly, had raised questions over the prerogatives of the state and its right to keep secrets. Such committees and inquiries perhaps had more resources and powers to call upon than Mr Marty.

Mr Marty had been right to protect the identities of witnesses who wished to remain anonymous. He had, just as all rapporteurs had done, cross-checked and cross-referenced his sources. The report was a good one which needed to be supported by a good majority. Work like that emphasised the role of the Council of Europe as a guarantor of human rights and the rule of law.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kyprianou.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – I will stick to the substance of the issue. As clearly stated in the report, the high-value detainee programme was implemented by the CIA in co-operation with European governmental officials and the implementation of that programme led to continuous and serious violations of human rights.

We are indeed satisfied with the rapporteur’s finding that the invocation of reasons of national secrecy and national security with the aim of avoiding parliamentary and judicial scrutiny must be in conformity with the principles of democracy and the rule of law. We fully agree with the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights that terrorism must be, and can be, confronted in accordance with respect for human rights and the rule of law. This position of principle, as the committee rightly points out, is based on the values embodied in the Council of Europe Statute and, more than any other, it will ensure in the long run the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism.

We also fully agree with the reference contained in the draft resolution that secret detentions as such are incompatible with the international obligations of the United States as well as the Council of Europe member states that are involved. We are obliged, however, to look into our own responsibilities and to have some self-criticism about the situation that has evolved. As stressed in the draft resolution, it creates dangers for the freedom of action of European governments due to their involvement in illegal CIA activities. It is well known that after 11 September, and as a result of pressure applied by the United States, many Council of Europe member states adopted a series of so-called anti-terror legislative measures which were aimed at suppressing terrorism. A characteristic example is the pan-European law regarding personal data retention, which seriously violates democratic freedoms and political rights. It is no exaggeration to say that we have reached the point where, unfortunately, the notion of a democratic Europe is increasingly considered a myth.

Invoking struggles, aims and ideals in committing terrorist acts does not at all justify the use of terror as a form of struggle. Going beyond the very serious issue of the human element – the undeniable fact that victims of terrorism are mostly innocent people – that tactic does not promote such struggles; on the contrary, it undermines them.

Despite the fact that the United States, like any other state, is justified in fighting terrorism, any type of self-defence must operate within the parameters of logic, international law and proportionality. Illegal participation in controversial para-statal activities that violate international and national law and human rights places enormous responsibilities on European governments. Logically, the question that comes to mind is: why are the mechanisms of the rule of law not functioning as expected in European states where democracy has been enshrined for decades? An evident reason pointed out in the report is that secret services act without the existence of any form of state control, or, even worse, act with the consent of their respective governments.

Last, but not least, I offer warm congratulations to Mr Marty on this second extremely important report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Lalonde.

Mrs LALONDE (Observer from Canada) warmly thanked Mr Marty for his courage and tenacity. The case of Mr Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, highlighted the general events that Mr Marty had mapped out in his report. Justice Dennis O’Connor had set out the facts of the case in findings which were given in 2006. Mr Maher Arar had been a student at McGill University when travelling through JFK airport in 2002. He had been arrested by the American authorities and held for 12 days before being sent to Syria through Jordan. He had been held in Syria for a year, where he was tortured and held in degrading circumstances. He had been left a devastated and broken man. The Canadian Government had awarded him CA$10 million in compensation and CA$2 million in legal expenses.

The key issue was that he had been held in the United States for 12 days and sent to Syria for a year, despite being a Canadian citizen with a family back in Canada. After his disappearance, allegations had emerged about possible links to al-Qaeda. The only way to verify that was through an inquiry by a judge. The judge in Canada found no evidence against Mr Maher Arar in terms of his being a threat to Canada. The United States had not disclosed why it had deported him, nor why it had not removed him from its list of undesirable people.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr MacShane, the next speaker on the list, appears not to be here, so I call Mr Sasi.

Mr SASI (Finland). – In this debate, we must remember that terrorism is the worst enemy of and biggest threat to human rights. Terrorists kill thousands of people every year; they blow up school buses and trains. This Assembly must give full support to the fight against terrorism. The main aim of this Assembly is to protect human life, and we must protect human life from terrorists. Mr Eörsi was right when he said that this fight cannot take place in a state of panic. We need clear and transparent rules, but we must remember that those rules must also be effective and lead to results. We must also remember that terrorists do not respect rules of any kind.

Mr Marty has gathered some useful material and information. The three cases mentioned – concerning Khaled El-Masri, Abu Omar and Maher Arar – are clear and are being dealt with through legal machinery. It is the obligation of parliamentarians in the countries where the cases are taking place to see that justice is done for those three people.

As for the report’s other conclusions, we cannot at the moment state, as the report states, that the facts have been established. We are still speaking of assumptions. There is a high degree of probability, and many of the things that have been described are likely to have happened, but we cannot speak of proven facts. There has been a tendency to confirm at the outset the expected results arising from the committee’s work. However, we are not judges in this Assembly; we are legislators, and we should look forward.

There are three elements that we should discuss: how secret services operate; how state secrecy and national security concepts are used; and the right, which everyone must have, of access to a court of law. Secret services are needed and every country must have them, but it is essential that we have effective control of them. There must be an external body of experts that controls their activities, and it should include human rights experts. They must control the procedures and ensure that they respect human rights. I think it will prove useful if people report to the parliaments in their respective countries.

As for the concepts of state secrecy and national security, not everything can be transparent. Those concepts are necessary. Certain limitations are possible, although they should be exercised reasonably, and the Assembly should emphasise the importance of individuals’ rights in relation to limits to transparency. We should note, however, the reference in the report to anonymous sources, on the basis of which certain assumptions are made. I think that such sources are useful for the purposes of study, but not for those of judgment.

Finally, I believe that we must guarantee that every human being in Europe will have full rights of access to a court of law. If anything is done wrongfully, people must receive damages. Action must be taken responsibly, so that justice is done at the end of the day.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. As I do not see Mrs Papadimitriou, I call Mr Steenblock.

Mr STEENBLOCK (Germany) noted that Germany was also mentioned in the report. The current debate so far had been typified by individuals defending or praising their own countries: that was inappropriate because the subject of the debate was the abduction of individuals.

These were incredible circumstances in which there had been co-operation between individual governments and the CIA. Unacceptable violations of human rights had been permitted by democratic states. Members of the Council of Europe had to come together and protect human rights. It might not be possible to eradicate that activity in the future, but it was possible to make it difficult to perpetrate.

It had been difficult for the rapporteur to obtain evidence for the report because of the threat of prosecution of witnesses. However, he had been tenacious and unflagging in seeking the truth and, as a consequence, had been able to shed new light on the situation.

In Germany they had sought to explore extraordinary rendition by means of a parliamentary committee which had stronger legal scrutiny powers. There was a current case at the Federal Constitutional Court about the government’s adoption of “state secret” status in that instance. It was vital that parliaments were able to hold governments to account.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Haibach.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that because of the unprecedented public attention the report had received it was one of the most important that the Council of Europe had produced in recent years. The Council of Europe was not concerned with making accusations against individual countries; it just wanted to know what the situation was. It had been difficult to get proof and in many cases it was dealing with probability. However, facts in the report had been very suggestive, as had the comments of the United States President. The report’s conclusions were also important in relation to the conclusions that would be reached in national parliaments.

There was no single country in the world in which human rights abuses did not occur; however, there had to be mechanisms in place to deal with human rights violations. Because the report was so important and was being discussed widely by the public, he wanted to make a specific point regarding how seriously the Council was taking itself – members had had only a day to form views on the report before it was debated. The press conference had been held before members knew the committee’s conclusions, and amendments had been rushed through the afternoon before the debate. The Council had to look at whether the processes had been in order as those might affect its continuing ability to defend human rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Cilevičs.

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia). – Thank you, Mr President. Usually, we have a tradition in this Assembly of congratulating rapporteurs, but in this case it is not just a matter of formal politeness. In fact, Mr Marty has expanded the limits of what has been traditionally considered as the capacities of this Assembly. This work required highly professional skills, a lot of effort and, probably most importantly, outstanding dedication to the principles of human rights and the rule of law. That is why I wholeheartedly congratulate both the rapporteur and his team, the Secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

This is, in fact, a unique situation. Our Assembly has done a job that no one else has been able to do. This is not a common report, but rather a real parliamentary investigation. As such, it has certain specificities and one cannot assess the reasoning and conclusions in the same way as one assesses the proceedings in a court of law.

As a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I carefully followed the development of the report from the very beginning, and I can only conclude that the facts have been established beyond any reasonable doubt. I sympathise with our Polish and Romanian colleagues. However, I would like to say something unequivocally: colleagues, please do not perceive this report as an attack on you personally or on your states. This is not only your fault; rather it is our common problem, and we ought to face it and to recognise its existence as the very first step towards resolving it.

Mr President, with this report, we run the risk of finding ourselves trapped in a vicious circle. We are denied full access to relevant information because it is secret, and afterwards our rapporteur has been accused of gathering insufficient evidence to confirm his conclusions. However, we regularly learn more and more about the matter, not only from whistleblowers. Sooner or later, the truth comes to light. I am afraid that some colleagues who attack Mr Marty today might find themselves in a quite uncomfortable situation.

If terrorists make us violate the principles of human rights and the rule of law, that would mean their victory. I hope that the situation covered in this report, although bitter, will become a useful lesson for all of us in Europe and that terrorists will not succeed. I believe that the draft resolution and draft recommendation proposed by the committee deserve the unconditional and energetic support of our Assembly. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Zaremba.

Mr ZAREMBA (Poland). – First, I would like to say that the former President of the Republic of Poland, Mr Kwaśniewski, and the current President, Mr Kaczyński, have very clearly said officially that there have been no illegal detentions across Polish territory. I am not even talking about torture – that is complete fantasy. In the report, we have only speculation, not facts.

The fact is – I will repeat it – that Mr Marty was invited by the Polish Government three times. Secret service training units were opened for his visit. He has never been to Poland. That is the first fact. Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger from Germany gave thanks for the fact that the Council of Europe must be the consciousness of Europe – exactly – so what about the Holocaust of present times in Chechnya? There is perhaps half a page on the possibility of torture in a prison in Grozny. Do you know what such camps are like? They are the Auschwitz or Sachsenhausen of present times. If you want to put it another way, they are like Srebrenica, Tuzla, Pale or Goražde in Bosnia.

If we want to be the real consciousness of Europe – I believe that we will be – we must find a balance between human rights, which, we agree, must be protected during our fight against terrorism, and we must consider those 1 000 people who lost their lives, their property and everything that they loved because one of the member states of the Council of Europe exterminated a whole nation. But what are we doing? We are discussing speculation. Is that the consciousness that you want?

Do you need to explain those clear facts to the nations of the former eastern European bloc? My state paid the biggest price – 6 million people of Jewish and Polish origin died. You do not have to explain such things to us. I hope that, as soon as possible, we will take care of that poor nation and do something for real and not consider pieces of paper. That is our duty, and you must remember one thing: in every case in European history, the policy of appeasement has finished in a horrible crash. Poland is protecting and supporting human rights during the fight against terrorism, but we are responsible to the next generation for our standards and our culture. That is the point. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Laakso.

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – The most important finding in Mr Marty’s new report is the key role that NATO has been playing in setting up the framework for the secret CIA flights and United States detention centres in Europe. In setting up the framework of secret operations, NATO itself was fulfilling the wishes of the United States, made on the basis of the so-called fifth article after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. NATO invoked the principle of collective defence on 12 September.

Mr Marty has been able to collect information and huge amounts of facts, which fully prove the responsibility of NATO in the secret and unlawful activities, and those activities, as we all know, gravely contradict the international law. Mr Marty has been successful in his work, in spite of the unwillingness of the NATO officials to co-operate with the Council of Europe rapporteur.

There is a total lack of parliamentary control of many important multilateral and bilateral arrangements which have been made within the framework of NATO. It seems that the military alliance has a huge network of secret arrangements with its members, about which the parliaments of the NATO countries know nothing. During the Cold War, everything was allowed in the name of combating communism – as we now know, for instance, on the basis of the new CIA-published book. Today, everything seems to be allowed again, under the pretext of combating terrorism. The unlawful actions of the CIA might be publicised only after 30 or 40 years, if ever. How can it be possible that human beings are kidnapped not only in war situations, such as in Afghanistan, but in Europe? How can it be possible that human beings are taken off the streets of our capitals and brought to secret detention centres, and transferred to other countries and continents, where they are tortured in order to get them to break and confess to things that they did not do?

NATO claims to be a transparent organisation – Finland is not a member of NATO – but it is always telling us that. It tells us that it fully shares the values of parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and human rights. However, Mr Marty’s report tells us something else: our rapporteur states, “NATO itself has been largely unresponsive to my requests.” It appears that NATO is an organisation that hides the facts and refuses to answer questions asked by other international organisations. NATO does not want to be under parliamentary scrutiny, and it even helps some of its member countries to break the basic rules of international law. Mr Marty’s findings on the role of NATO were, for me, the most important of them.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I cannot see Mr Meyer, so I call Mr Dragassakis.

Mr DRAGASSAKIS (Greece) thanked Mr Marty for an excellent report. Part of the debate had focused on accusations against individual countries contained in the report, but it was important to appreciate that the report contained accusations against a great many countries. The debate was not about singling out or making accusations against individual countries, but about putting certain practices under the spotlight and deciding what was right or wrong. The report had pointed out problems and actions that needed further investigation – for example, the fact that rendition flights had passed through Greek airspace, a fact which was denied by the Greek Government. It was vital to get to the bottom of such areas of dispute. Another matter to address today was whether a plot lay behind these activities. Again, more research was needed to get to the bottom of those complex issues.

His final point concerned the role of NATO. This was an important issue for all NATO member states. The extent to which there were secret agreements between NATO countries was not known. It was true that the report had certain shortcomings, but it raised very important questions, and it was crucial to persist in efforts to establish the truth. Agreements made in secret between NATO countries had to be subjected to political and parliamentary scrutiny.

(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Aligrudić.)

THE PRESIDENT. – We agreed that we would interrupt the debate at 12.05 p.m., but there is still one member on the long list of speakers left to contribute and I would prefer to call him first. I call Mr Sigfússon.

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – I congratulate Mr Marty and his crew and the whole Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights – and, indeed, the entire Council of Europe – on their work, because it goes to the heart of our European systems. If we do not do our utmost to follow up on this work, we will be failing in our main duty.

I wish to emphasise three things. First, terrorism, like all other forms of criminality, must be fought within the law. Secondly, there is never any excuse or justification for torture or other inhumane treatment of people. Thirdly, no one, regardless of how powerful they are, should ever be allowed to ignore or intentionally break international law. We must in all circumstances insist on full respect for, and full compliance with, the Geneva Conventions. Every person in the world – regardless of whether they are a citizen or a war criminal – must be afforded the basic rights conferred by the Geneva Conventions.

There is no alternative, such as that which the Americans are trying to establish at Guantánamo Bay. Let us think about how outrageous it is for people, only on the basis of suspicion, to be deprived of their basic human rights, to be arrested or kidnapped and removed, and for their family to be kept in the dark about their fate. It has been established beyond the slightest doubt that the illegal arrests or kidnappings took place. It had also been established that secret flights on false premises took place. There were secret detention sites where those persons were kept. The biggest issue is not whether they were in this or that country. Those persons were moved from country to country, detained and tortured somewhere. There was torture. Those are all facts. We do not have only Mr Marty’s report to rely on; we have the reports and research of Human Rights Watch, the work of Amnesty International and a lot of press investigation. We have the findings of the Canadian judge who was quoted earlier.

One of the striking findings of the report concerns NATO’s involvement and role. Each and every one of us who belongs to a NATO country has work to do. We must ask our governments why they have been in a constant state of denial. In Iceland, for example, we know that dozens of flights used Icelandic airports, including Keflavik airport in Reykjavik, yet our government constantly denies any knowledge of the issue. Where were our governments on 4 October 2001, when the NATO meeting took place? We all have work to do in each respective country, when we go home and here in the Council of Europe.

I urge everyone to support the report and the positive amendments that will strengthen it, and to vote against the others.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

That concludes the list of speakers. I now call Mr Marty to reply to the debate.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) thanked members for their contributions to the debate and for the many kind words which had been expressed. There were a few points for him to make in a personal capacity before addressing some of the points raised in the debate. Producing the report had been a very difficult exercise because the team had operated in a degree of isolation, and the difficulties in accessing information had been tremendous. Some governments had failed to reply to questions, and NATO had not co-operated fully with the investigation either. It was only thanks to the small team working with him that it had been possible to complete the report. The President of the Assembly had always encouraged and supported the investigation, and that had been much appreciated. It was essential also to express sincere thanks to American civil society, especially Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other NGOs. Finally, investigative journalists had played a crucial role in helping to cross-check information from different sources, and sincere thanks went to them, too.

The report should not be seen as a conspiracy novel. Had it been such a novel, it would have been discredited within the first month after publication. Those members who had levelled personal accusations against him, even accused him of lying, should take a moment to reflect on the fact that, after a 35-year career in the courts and parliament, it was not very probable that he should have gambled his entire reputation for a quick-fire report aimed solely at grabbing the headlines. Being at the end of such a long political career, his reputation was far more important to him than 15 minutes of fame achieved through big headlines in the media.

The CIA had failed to respond, but it was surely aware that too many people now knew too much about what had taken place for it to remain secret. While much more information from the United States was clearly desirable, it was important to start by concentrating on what had taken place in Europe. Occasionally, the question was asked whether the evidence behind his report would stand up in court: his answer was always yes, he believed it would. The fact that protection programmes afforded protection and anonymity to witnesses in serious crime cases meant that witnesses could also be afforded protection in these types of cases, and therefore the courts would certainly have access to the information drawn on in the report. In Munich, the Public Prosecutor had recently issued a press notice stating that arrest warrants had been issued for a number of alleged CIA agents in connection with the El-Masri case. That was an important indication that the evidence in many of the cases was of a quality that was taken seriously by the courts.

Attempts to obstruct efforts to lay bare the truth, as witnessed in a number of member countries, were disgraceful. Members of the Assembly had to decide whether they were here representing their governments or whether they were members of the Assembly as representatives of the citizens of Europe. It was notable that none of the Polish contributors to the debate had spoken about the flights passing over their country, something that had been covered up by the Polish Government. What was at stake in the debate was that they were all collectively turning into belligerents through complicity. Terrorists were criminals, and they had to be dealt with as criminals, no more and no less.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Jurgens, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – During the last half year, the usual work of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has been busy and, on top of that, there has been the important work of our chairman, Mr Marty, the rapporteur on this very subtle issue. I would like to stress for the benefit of those who have attacked Mr Marty personally that the draft resolution and the draft recommendation have been put before you by the committee, not by Mr Marty. It is important to stress that. The memorandum and, of course, all the investigative work carried out by the staff are Mr Marty’s responsibility, but the committee has taken over that responsibility.

We know very well that we are not a court of law. Thus, asking us to provide proof as in a court of law is, of course, idiotic. In a sense, it would be fantastic if it were a court of law. It would be great if all these people who have been flown over Europe and detained there had a court of law to appeal to. That would be tremendous.

It is also important to note that this is not an official parliamentary inquiry. We have not been able to ask or force witnesses to come before us or to put them under oath. All that we have been able to do – all that Mr Marty and his staff have been able to do – is provide a fastidious analysis of public facts. Mr Marty also benefited from the willingness of certain witnesses to talk to him, although they could not reveal themselves as such. They will be the whistleblowers of the coming years. Criticism of Mr Marty is unfair.

What we should do now is look further into the result of these investigations in the knowledge that the burden of proof has moved. That is the achievement of Mr Marty’s report. The burden of proof has moved from us. Previously, we had to prove that something was done; now those who have been named in this matter have to state clearly and irrefutably that they are not guilty of these things. As I say, the burden of proof has moved. I hope that the Assembly will agree that the report of our committee was a good one.

THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which 20 amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which three amendments have been tabled.

We will consider first the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited strictly to one minute.

We come to Amendment No. 21, which is tabled by Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Krzysztof Zaremba, Mr Krzysztof Lisek, Mr Andres Herkel and Mrs Ingrida Circene, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, replace the words “revealing the existence of a ‘spider’s web’ of illegal transfers” with the following words: “presenting the existence of a ‘spider’s web’ of transfers”.

I call Mr Sasi to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr SASI (Finland). – It has been said that there has been some striving for sensation in the work. That is why, in referring to the report of 2006, I would like to change the word “revealing” to “presenting” and to delete the word “illegal”. When it comes to sensationalism, the press revealed these things first. The second report came later on, so we can make the changes in this report and leave it in the other report because of the context.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Lund.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – I prefer the wording in the draft resolution because the word “revealing” is better than “presenting”. The problem with the word “presenting” is the possible assumption that these problems do not really exist. I therefore view the proposed changes as a means of weakening the resolution. I do not think we should do that. We had a report last year and have done another whole year’s work. Part of the dynamics of that work has been to gather more information and reveal many more things about what has really happened with these high-value detainee programmes. I think we should vote against.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The text before us did not include the change from “revealing” to “presenting”. I have no opinion on that, but the removal of the word “illegal” was rejected by the committee. I therefore recommend voting against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 21 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Vasile Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mr Radu Mircea Berceanu, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Walter Bartoš, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Krzysztof Lisek, Mr Jan Filip Libicki, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Mr Ivan Popescu, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Karol Karski, Mr Marek Kawa, Mr Zbigniew Rau, Mrs Ewa Tomaszewska and Mr Piotr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 2 with the following paragraph:

“After the research carried out by its rapporteur, the Assembly still cannot rule out the possibility that such secret detention centres operated by the CIA existed in the Council of Europe member states.”

I call Mr Ungureanu to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) said that the amendment sought to change paragraph 2 as he did not feel that the conclusions regarding the existence of detention centres had been proved by the evidence presented.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 fall. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – We discussed this amendment in the committee. The vast majority of us took the view that the existence of these centres is factually established. The facts are contained in the report and anyone can read them. Only those who do not want to read the facts or who do not want to translate them with their true meaning could doubt the existence of these centres.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – We discussed Amendments Nos. 5, 22 and 23 together. We rejected Amendments Nos. 5 and 22, and we accepted Amendment No. 23.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 22.

Mr SASI (Finland). – I withdraw the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Amendment No. 22 is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker, Mr Claudio Azzolini, Mr João Bosco Mota Amaral, Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mrs Ingrida Circene, Mr Göran Lindblad and Mr Luc Van den Brande, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, replace the words “factually established” with the following words: “established with a high degree of probability”.

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 23.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The committee agreed with Amendment No. 23. We do not think that “factually established” covers exactly what is going on. There is an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence, as well as private testimonies by 30 people who gave good evidence. We therefore propose to acknowledge that the conclusions of Mr Marty’s report are “established with a high degree of probability”.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Lund.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – I must say that the evidence before us comes from different sources. This is not a court of justice, but the evidence is what I would call very heavy. The report is very comprehensive and the number of people who provided evidence to Mr Marty represents a big step forward in making that knowledge public. I believe that the drafting of the resolution as it stands is the best way of formulating the text.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Vasile Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mr Radu Mircea Berceanu, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Walter Bartoš, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Krzysztof Lisek, Mr Jan Filip Libicki, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Mr Ivan Popescu, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Karol Karski, Mr Marek Kawa, Mr Zbigniew Rau, Mrs Ewa Tomaszewska and Mr Piotr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 3 with the following paragraph:

“Analysis of the data on the movements of certain aircraft, obtained from different sources, including international air traffic control authorities, has been performed, with a view to identifying possible routes used in the ‘Spider web’.”

I call Mr Ungureanu to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) said that paragraph 3 needed to be redrafted because it could not be evaluated by the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – The places in question have been established by clear evidence, which was accepted by the vast majority on the committee. Those who do not accept that the places in question have been established are misinterpreting the clear facts contained in the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Vasile Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mr Radu Mircea Berceanu, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Walter Bartoš, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Krzysztof Lisek, Mr Jan Filip Libicki, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Mr Ivan Popescu, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Karol Karski, Mr Marek Kawa, Mr Zbigniew Rau, Mrs Ewa Tomaszewska and Mr Piotr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 4 with the following paragraph:

“The President of the United States acknowledged, on 6 September 2006, that ‘in addition to the terrorists held at Guantánamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency’.”

I call Mr Ungureanu to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) said that paragraph 4 needed to be redrafted because neither the United States President nor anybody else had actually referred to the detention centres being located in Poland or Romania.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Again, there is an attempt to doubt the findings of the rapporteur and the facts contained in the report, without giving us any explanation or any facts to prove the contrary.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Vasile Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mr Radu Mircea Berceanu, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Walter Bartoš, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Krzysztof Lisek, Mr Jan Filip Libicki, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Mr Ivan Popescu, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Karol Karski, Mr Marek Kawa, Mr Zbigniew Rau, Mrs Ewa Tomaszewska and Mr Piotr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 5 with the following paragraph:

“Assessment of the supposed CIA programme is difficult in the absence of information made public by the United States.”

I call Mr Ungureanu to support Amendment No. 8.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) said that the amendment reflected the fact that the paragraph was not supported by the facts.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Laakso.

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – This sentence proves very well that there are people among us who think that only after Bush or the CIA confirms something will it become a truth.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Vasile Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mr Radu Mircea Berceanu, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Walter Bartoš, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Krzysztof Lisek, Mr Jan Filip Libicki, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Mr Ivan Popescu, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Karol Karski, Mr Marek Kawa, Mr Zbigniew Rau, Mrs Ewa Tomaszewska and Mr Piotr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 6.

I call Mr Ungureanu to support Amendment No. 9.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) wanted to delete the whole of paragraph 6 because there was no proof of co-operation between Council of Europe member states and the United States.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – The paragraph does speak about co-operation between governments. The allegation affects the secret services, and there is clear evidence concerning the collaboration of the secret services in some European countries with the CIA. Clearly, this is an important paragraph, and it is a sound paragraph based on facts.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Angelika Graf, Mrs Doris Barnett, Mr Johannes Pflug, Mr Rainder Steenblock, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Marcel Glesener, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Christoph Strässer and Mr Ingo Schmitt, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the words “earnestly deplores” with the following word: “notes”.

I call Mr Haibach to support Amendment No. 18.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that in paragraph 8 he wished to replace the words “earnestly deplores” with “notes”. That would avoid using a value judgment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Lund.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – Why simply use the word “notes”? Why can we not use the word “deplores”? We have observed a really serious problem, in that governments are not co-operating fully with the rapporteur and the Council of Europe, so I think that we should keep the original text.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – It is difficult to say. The committee tried to find a compromise by deleting the word “earnestly” before “deplores”, but that would require an oral amendment from the committee at this stage.

THE PRESIDENT. – We shall first vote on Amendment No. 18 and then, depending on the outcome of that vote, there will be an opportunity to put forward an oral amendment.

The vote is open.

The Assembly has just adopted Amendment No. 18, which replaces the words that the potential oral amendment proposed to change. The oral amendment cannot therefore be put to the Assembly. In my opinion, it was in order with the rules, but following the outcome of the vote it has no function.

We come to Amendment No. 19, tabled by Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Angelika Graf, Mrs Doris Barnett, Mr Johannes Pflug, Mr Rainder Steenblock, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Željko Ivanji, Ms Donka Banović, Mr Marcel Glesener, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Christoph Strässer and Mr Ingo Schmitt, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the words “are invoked by many governments (United States, Poland, Romania, ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, Italy and Germany, as well as the Russian Federation in the Northern Caucasus) to obstruct judicial and/or parliamentary proceedings aimed at ascertaining the responsibilities of the executive in relation to grave allegations of human rights violations and at rehabilitating and compensating the alleged victims of such violations.” with the following words:

“invoked in different ways and with different consequences by many governments (Germany, Italy, ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation in the Northern Caucasus, United States), make it more difficult to conclude judicial and/or parliamentary proceedings aimed at ascertaining responsibility for rehabilitating and compensating the alleged victims of violations. In several countries (Germany, Italy, United States), legal issues pertaining to the limits of state secrecy and executive privilege are still pending before the highest national courts.”

I call Mr Haibach to support Amendment No. 19.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that the amendment sought to give a clearer presentation of the facts by distinguishing between different countries. For example, in Germany there had been a debate over what matters the state could deem secret and what matters it could not.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – If this amendment is agreed, Amendment No. 10 falls.

The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Vasile Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mr Radu Mircea Berceanu, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Walter Bartoš, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Krzysztof Lisek, Mr Jan Filip Libicki, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Mr Ivan Popescu, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Karol Karski, Mr Marek Kawa, Mr Zbigniew Rau, Mrs Ewa Tomaszewska and Mr Piotr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, delete the first sentence.

I call Mr Ungureanu to support Amendment No. 11.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) said that the amendment indicated that the rapporteur had not established his case.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands) The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Vasile Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mr Radu Mircea Berceanu, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Mircea Mereuţă, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Walter Bartoš, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Krzysztof Lisek, Mr Jan Filip Libicki, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka, Mr Ivan Popescu, Mr Piotr Gadzinowski, Mr Karol Karski, Mr Marek Kawa, Mr Zbigniew Rau, Mrs Ewa Tomaszewska and Mr Piotr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, delete the words “, but has itself encountered the government authorities’ reluctance to shed all possible light on the CIA’s questionable activities in Romanian territory”.

I call Mr Ungureanu to support Amendment No. 12.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) said that he had asked for the amendment because the conclusions were not supported by the documents. There was no proof of covert involvement by the CIA.

THE PRESIDENT. – You are speaking to Amendment No. 11. We are discussing Amendment No. 12. You may defend Amendment No. 12 now. You have one minute.

Mr UNGUREANU (Romania) said he wanted to shed light on the truth.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – In the committee we praised our Romanian colleagues for their collaboration with the rapporteur, but the facts indicate that the government was reluctant, or unwilling, to co-operate. The original wording is therefore important, and should remain.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands) The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Rune Lund, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, Mr Ioannis Dragassakis and Mr Andros Kyprianou, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 16, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly regrets the unwillingness of NATO to co-operate with the rapporteur and asks the parliaments and the governments of those Council of Europe member states, which are also members of NATO, to co-operate in the future with the rapporteur in order to clarify fully the extent of the secret CIA-flights and use of secret detentions in Europe.”

I call Mr Lund to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – The amendment asks governments in NATO countries to work towards full clarification, but it also urges NATO parliaments to put pressure on their governments in order to shed light on these matters. It demands concrete action, and provides proposals for us to present to our respective national parliaments.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Marty wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which reads as follows: “In Amendment No. 14, delete ‘to co-operate in future with the rapporteur in order’.”

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules, but do 10 or more members object to its being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Marty to move the oral sub-amendment. He has one minute.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said the supposition behind Amendment No. 14 was that he had been given a mandate for a third report, which he had not.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr LUND (Denmark). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour of removing the reference to the rapporteur from the text.

THE PRESIDENT. – So the committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 14, as amended?

I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I have been surprised by the anti-NATO flavour of much of what has been said today. I could not understand how that could be due to anything other than just that – anti-NATO sentiments. The report manifestly lacks any evidence to support what has been said about NATO. The decision made on 4 October is clear: it applies to military flights related to operations against terrorism. There is not a shred of evidence in the report to suggest that NATO was complicit in any of the other actions mentioned in the amendment.

If there is evidence that NATO conspired with others to allow civilian flights to masquerade as military flights, where is it? There is no evidence to suggest that that happened, and I think that that part of the report is particularly unhelpful to the operations of NATO in general. It beggars belief that it fails to understand what was agreed on 4 October.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Rune Lund, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, Mr Ioannis Dragassakis and Mr Andros Kyprianou, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 16, insert the following paragraph:

“The Council of Europe strongly criticises the role of NATO as the platform from which the United States obtained the essential permissions and protections it required to launch CIA covert action in the ‘war of terror’.”

I call Mr Lund to support Amendment No. 15.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – Mr Hancock cannot have read the report. Paragraph 83 states that “the CIA’s key operational needs on a multilateral level were developed under the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).” Paragraph 97 states that “there were additional components to the NATO authorisation of 4 October 2001 that have remained secret.” I think it is of the utmost importance for the additional secret parts of the NATO decision of 4 October 2001 to be made public. That would give us more tools with which to conduct further investigation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I have read the report, but what does paragraph 83 actually say? It is full of supposition. There is no evidence. The only decision taken by NATO that relates in any way to this argument is that NATO was going to give permission for clearly identified military flights only over our territory in the fight against terrorism. If there is any evidence to the contrary, where is it? There is not a single letter, e-mail or anything else to justify the attack on NATO. Although I think NATO has a great deal to answer for, on this occasion I think it is being used for the wrong reasons.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). –– The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, Mr Johannes Pflug and Mrs Vera Oskina, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 17.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“the governments of all Council of Europe member states to make a full commitment that they will play no future part in allowing the transportation through their states, or the holding for any length of time, of any remaining detainees currently held at Guantánamo Bay;”.

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I am very conscious of the fact that there is a caveat in respect of the American decision to close Guantánamo Bay: how will they deal with the remaining 300 or so prisoners there? The amendment spells out this Assembly’s commitment – and I hope that of the Committee of Ministers and our national parliaments – to play no part in the way in which those people’s future will be decided or how they will be transported to other locations. The amendment deals with both the transportation and the future holding of any of the detainees who are released from Guantánamo Bay. We do not want to see another Guantánamo Bay established elsewhere in the world, as that would be against everyone’s interest, not least that of the United States.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, Mr Johannes Pflug and Mrs Vera Oskina, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 17.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“the governments of all Council of Europe member states to make available to their national parliaments all relevant information held by them, including witness statements, relating to the role of their state in the practice of extraordinary rendition or the holding of American prisoners in secret detention centres in their state, should they wish to conduct an inquiry;”.

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Erik Jurgens made a very telling point in his two-minute presentation when he talked about shifting the burden of proof. If shifting the burden of proof is to be realistically achieved, that can be done only through the scrutiny of national parliaments. If that is to happen, we must ensure that member states are held to account for their failure to address the requests of national parliaments for this documentation. The report should clearly state that that is one of our ambitions, and all governments should agree to comply with it.

THE PRESIDENT. – I understand that Mr Marty wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which reads as follows: “In Amendment No. 2, delete the word ‘American’.”

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I call Mr Marty to move the oral sub-amendment.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that that was not the problem. Mr Hancock was talking about United States citizens who were prisoners when in fact there were none in Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib; in fact, they needed to talk about prisoners held by the United States.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendement?

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I hope that the oral sub-amendment does not distort the facts. My amendment is about the remaining prisoners. They are not Americans, but American-held prisoners. I can understand why it might be suggested that the reference to American-held prisoners should be taken out, but I would hate to think that other countries had Guantánamo Bays, and Mr Marty suggests that there might be such places.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 2, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, Mr Johannes Pflug and Mrs Vera Oskina, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 17.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“the governments of all Council of Europe member states who did not respond to the request made by the rapporteur and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe fully to explain their reasons for failing to co-operate;”.

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – This amendment would clearly place an obligation on all member states to respond to what can only be considered as reasonable requests for information. I am sure that, over the years, many rapporteurs, including myself, have requested information from member states and they have replied in one way or another. They might have said, “Yes, we would like to help and here is the information,” or “No, we cannot help because we do not hold it.” It is totally unreasonable for any member state of this Organisation not to comply with its obligations, one of which must be to co-operate with the resolutions of the Council of Europe itself. Whether the resolutions come from Mr Marty, as the rapporteur, or from the Secretary General or the Assembly’s Clerk, they are legitimate requests made in pursuance of resolutions of this Assembly. For member states to ignore or disregard those requests is unacceptable in my opinion, and we should have a proper explanation of why that has occurred.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Rune Lund, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, Mr Ioannis Dragassakis and Mr Andros Kyprianou, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 17.2, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“NATO to make public the additional components to the NATO authorisation of 4 October 2001 that have until now remained secret.”

I call Mr Lund to support Amendment No. 16.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – I may have confused this amendment, which is self-explanatory, with Amendment No. 15, but it is very important nevertheless.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, Mr Johannes Pflug and Mrs Vera Oskina, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.3, add the following paragraph:

“The Assembly commits itself to providing all relevant information it holds on this subject to any member state parliament conducting its own inquiry, pursuant to sub-paragraph 17.1.”

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – This amendment goes right to the hub of what was discussed by many of those who spoke during today’s debate. If we are to have an inquiry by a member state and if the burden of proof has been shifted to the member state, it is surely entitled to have the knowledge and assistance of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Evidence given to us in producing this report should be clearly made available to the parliaments of such member states – in effect, moving from parliamentarians to parliamentarians – to enable them to do their job properly.

The problem in the United Kingdom was that Mr Blair made a completely open proposal to the parliament. He said, “I will hold a full public inquiry into these events if anyone can supply the evidence.” To date, no one has supplied the evidence. If the Council of Europe has evidence that would enable the United Kingdom Parliament to hold such an inquiry, I would be delighted if it would hand it over, and every other parliament represented here should have the same view.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Omtzigt.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – This amendment seems reasonable, as it suggests that such documents should be made public. However, there are 30 secret testimonies. The Council of Europe explicitly agreed that those testimonies would not become public, but the amendment calls for them to be made public. We cannot vote against ourselves. We should use all the public information that we can get from the legal information office, but not this information. I therefore think that we should reject this amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11302 revised, as amended.

The vote is open.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has also presented a draft recommendation, to which three amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the following order: 17, 20 and 13.

We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Rune Lund, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, Mr Ioannis Dragassakis, Mr Andros Kyprianou and Mr Aleksei Lotman, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly urges the Committee of Ministers to follow carefully the activities of the Council of Europe member states in the NATO-led ISAF-mission in Afghanistan in order to prevent unlawful transfers of detainees under the pretext of combating terrorism.”

I call Mr Lund to support Amendment No. 17.

Mr LUND (Denmark). – It has been established that NATO has played a central role in this programme. The military operation in Afghanistan is the most important operation for NATO. There have in the past been unlawful transfers of detainees from Afghanistan to elsewhere, and that might also happen in the future. The Council should in future devote attention to that; human rights should be protected, but Council of Europe member states are engaged in possible human rights violations outside Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Once again, I am amazed. The terms of conduct for NATO soldiers is that people whom they arrest or detain should be handed over as soon as possible to the Afghan authorities, but some of us might suggest that that is the least preferable thing to do. There is clear evidence that some people detained by the Afghan authorities are not treated as we would wish.

In terms of the amendment, I am at a loss to understand how information on these matters might be collected and how the situation might be monitored. Let me draw on my experience as a member of the Defence Committee at the British Parliament. It is made clear that all detainees arrested by NATO members – including British armed forces in Afghanistan – must be handed over as swiftly as possible to the appropriate Afghan authorities. If there is evidence that that is not the case, that should be stated. However, I am loth to agree to the amendment because what it proposes would be impossible to monitor.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee was against because it is not right to recommend that the Committee of Ministers do something that it is not competent to do.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 17 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mr Holger Haibach, Mr Joachim Hörster, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Mrs Angelika Graf, Mrs Doris Barnett, Mr Johannes Pflug, Mr Rainder Steenblock, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Christoph Strässer and Mr Ingo Schmitt, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, replace the words “are invoked by many governments to obstruct” with the following words: “invoked by many governments make more difficult”.

I call Mr Haibach to support Amendment No. 20.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) suggested that paragraph 3 of the recommendation be amended so that it fell into line with paragraph 8 in the draft resolution, as amended, and the two would stand together.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Jaume Bartumeu Cassany, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Mrs Ingrida Circene and Mr Serhiy Holovaty, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4, add the following paragraph:

“As regards the improvement of democratic oversight of the activities of national intelligence services, the Committee of Ministers is invited to look into the need for member states to provide such oversight in respect of, in particular, military intelligence services as well as those foreign intelligence services operating in their territory.”

I call Mr Jurgens to support Amendment No. 13.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – It is clear that the oversight issue is the central problem in our entire discussion. If there were good oversight of what military intelligence services do in all our states, it would be easier for national parliaments to control things. Then, if a government said, “No, we had nothing to do with that,” somebody independent could look into that and decide whether that government was right or wrong. Otherwise, we would have to surmise, as we are doing today. The only way to prevent that is to have good oversight of military and other intelligence services.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11302 revised, as amended.

The vote is open. We need a two-thirds majority.

I congratulate the rapporteur on his fearless, conscientious and honest work, and Assembly members on their direct and open discussion, which was a wonderful example of the kind of debate that we have in this Assembly.

4. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved on Monday.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Changes in the membership of committees

2.       Time limit on speeches

3.       Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report

      Presentation by Mr Marty of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Doc. 11302 rev. and Addendum

      Speakers:

      Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)

      Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

      Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)

      Mr Lund (Denmark)

      Mrs Durrieu (France)

      Mrs Gacek (Poland)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Mrs Cliveti (Romania)

      Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

      Mr Ungureanu (Romania)

      Mr Berceanu (Romania)

      Mr Kaikkonen (Finland)

      Mr Strässer (Germany)

      Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

      Mr Gross (Switzerland)

      Mrs Jazłowiecka (Poland)

      Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (Germany)

      Mr Kyprianou (Cyprus)

      Mrs Lalonde (Observer from Canada)

      Mr Sasi (Finland)

      Mr Steenblock (Germany)

      Mr Haibach (Germany)

      Mr Cilevičs (Latvia)

      Mr Zaremba (Poland)

      Mr Laakso (Finland)

      Mr Dragassakis (Greece)

      Mr Sigfússon (Iceland)

      Replies:

      Mr Marty (Switzerland)

      Mr Jurgens (Netherlands)

      Amendments Nos. 23, 18, 19, 14 as amended, 1, 2 as amended, 3 and 16 adopted.

      Draft resolution in Document 11302 revised, as amended, adopted.

      Amendments Nos. 20 and 13 adopted.

      Draft recommendation in Document 11302 revised, as amended, adopted.

4.       Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting